2019-19-Minutes for Meeting October 17,2018 Recorded 1/10/2019C�\)I'S BOG
�' BaAi�� OF
Recorded in Deschutes County
F ?� CJ2019-19
COMMISSIONER S Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 01 /10/2019 4:17:26 PM
il
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon II��I'll'I"I�II��'I�'III II�
w'`*k S C OG
(541 ) 388-6570
2019-19
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
9:00 AM WEDNESDAY, October 17, 2018 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were
Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County
Counsel; and Laura Skundrick, Board Administrative Assistant. No identified representatives of the
media were in attendance.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT:
Angel Rose stated there is a large issue of flat tires as a result of nails left from
construction companies not cleaning up after their jobs, and that she will be
speaking with Bend City Council this evening. She created a petition that she
intended to file on the ballot. County Administrator Anderson encouraged her to
reach out to the County's Building officials and the Community Development
department, because provisions exist within the building code for cleanup of
construction sites. Commissioners thanked her for bringing this issue to them.
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 7
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the
Consent Agenda.
BANEY: Move approval.
HENDERSON: Requested to vote separately on items #1 and #2, and to
postpone approval of items #3-6.
VOTE: BAN EY: Yes.
HENDERSON: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Consent Agen do Items:
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-678, a Collective Bargaining
Agreement with FOPPO
2. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-043, Budget Adjustment -
Illegal Marijuana Enforcement
3. Approval of Minutes of the September 5, 2018 Business Meeting
4. Approval of Minutes of the September 12, 2018 Work Session
5. Approval of Minutes of the September 19, 2018 Business Meeting
6. Approval of Minutes of the September 19, 2018 Work Session
ACTION ITEMS
Consent Agenda Item 1 as pulled for discussion: Consideration of Board Signature
of Document No. 2018-678, a Collective Bargaining Agreement with FOPPO
Commissioner Henderson inquired about the new pay scale and the increase of
2.1 %. County Deputy Administrator Kropp stated the 2.1 % increase reflects the cost
of living increase received by all County employees effective July 1, 2018.
BANEY:
DEBONE:
VOTE:
Move approval.
Second.
BAN EY:
HENDERSON
DEBONE:
Yes.
No.
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 7
Consent Agenda Item 2 as pulled for discussion: Consideration of Board Signature
of Resolution No. 2018-043, Budget Adjustment - Illegal Marijuana
Enforcement
Commissioner Baney provided background of this position, adding capacity on the
Central Oregon Drug Enforcement team to look at illegal grow operations and
those that may be growing marijuana outside the scope of their license, and it is a
good partnership with the District Attorney's Office. Commissioner Henderson and
Chair DeBone further detailed the partnership and support the position.
HENDERSON: Move approval.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
7. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-645, Saving Grace Grant
Agreement - Sarah Peterson, Systems Development Specialist
Ms. Peterson and Nicole Borchert, Mary's Place Facilitator, provided highlights of
the grant agreement request and general background on Mary's Place and the
courthouse advocacy project. Commissioner Baney inquired whether this remained
the only safe exchange facility this side of the Cascades, and Ms. Peterson
confirmed yes.
BANEY: Move approval.
HENDERSON: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
HENDERSON: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
8. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-679, ODOT Right -Of -
Way Services Agreement - US 20-Tumalo Project - Chris Doty, Road Department
Director
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 7
Mr. Doty summarized the agreement previously approved by the Board for funding
this purchase. He provided background on this new agreement, which would
approve the service ODOT would provide with agents and services. Chair DeBone
inquired about ownership of the right of way and Mr. Doty replied this would be
purchase on behalf of Deschutes County.
BAN EY: Move approval.
HENDERSON: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
HENDERSON: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
9. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-680, ODOT IGA - US 97
S Century Drive to USFS Boundary Project - Chris Doty, Road Department Director
Mr. Doty introduced Della Mozier and Abbey Driscoll from ODOT. He noted the
$70,000 contribution from the capital improvement plan specifically to intersection
of US97 and Vandevert. He added that the scope of the project will depend on
whether partial or total funding is received by ODOT. Ms. Mozier outlined various
project phases relative to levels of funding. Commissioner Henderson asked for
more information about the Build Grant, and Ms. Driscoll explained the competitive
process nationwide with results by December.
HENDERSON: Move approval.
BAN EY: Second.
VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes.
BAN EY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
10. FIRST READING: Ordinance No. 2018-012, Marijuana Text Amendments - Tanya
Saltzman, Associate Planner
The Board determined they will work to complete recreational regulations before
they address the medical program regulations.
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 7
Ms. Saltzman led the Commissioners through each remaining finding that still
requires determination from the Board.
RECESS: At the time of 10:40am Chair DeBone called for a short recess and
reconvened the meeting at 10:52am.
11. DELIBERATIONS: Father's House Church Appeals, 21420 Stevens Road, Bend -
Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
Ms. Smidt provided minor corrections to the memo and matrix, provided
background on the appeal and led the Board through the matrix.
Chair DeBone summarized that these deliberations indicate support for the
application and Ms. Smidt confirmed she will have the final written decision
available by October 31 st.
SAT THIS POINT, Sharon Keith took over from Laura Skundrick as Recording Secretary.]
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2018-648,
Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit for 4 Peaks Music Festival - Isabella Liu, Associate
Planner
Isabella Liu, Associate Planner outlined the hearing procedures. Commissioner
DeBone asked if any commissioner had any conflicts to disclose. Commissioner
Baney stated for the record she had accepted a campaign contribution from the
applicant's father but doesn't see it as an issue of a conflict. One member of the
audience, stated Commissioner Baney actually received three contributions to her
campaign from the parties that are trying to obtain this permit. Commissioner
Baney appreciated the comment but stated that none of the contributions will
affect her ability to make an impartial decision. The objection was noted for the
record and Commissioner DeBone opened the hearing. Ms. Liu presented the staff
report.
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 7
The applicant Stacy Koff and her attorney Steve Hultberg presented comments on
the nature of the application. A variance is requested with Adventure Medics to
waive the requirement of an ambulance on-site.
Kathy Miner presented testimony on behalf of herself and her daughters. Mrs.
Miner explained her daughter is requesting compensation for her rabbits that do
not gain weight during the concert event and their growth pattern is delayed
causing issues for competition at the County Fair. Mrs. Miner noted her other
daughter is seeing issues with the chickens and turkeys experiencing weight issues
causing issues for competition at the County Fair. Mrs. Miner expressed concerns
of violations, bad neighbor behavior and all items of the application. Mrs. Miner
presented photographs of the outcome of last year's event. Mrs. Miner encourages
the Board to deny the permit for 2019.
Steve Miner presented testimony and noted the affects to his property, animals,
and family during the 4 Peaks Music Festival. Mr. Miner explained the concert
event spans over two important weekends for his family. Mr. Miner stated he had
been given advice from the County Law Enforcement and Attorneys to document
violations and reported on several items of concern from the 2018 concert event.
Mr. Hultberg and Ms. Koff presented rebuttal. Mr. Hultberg feels there were many
incorrect references in the testimony. Ms. Koff gave response to the concerns
addressed by Mr. & Mrs. Miner. The location of the event was reviewed and
considered for better placement and improvements. A few corrections will be
made relative to days of the event and times that were made in error on the permit
application.
Commissioner Henderson requests to review the permit further. Commissioner
DeBone closed the public hearing and noted to keep the record open.
Mr. Hultberg encourages a decision to be made as soon as possible.
OTHER ITEMS: None were offered.
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 7
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:42pm.
SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW
DATED this Da of 2018 for the Deschutes Count Board of
Day v
Commissioners.
L
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2018 PAGE 7 OF 7
v1 ES CO
�i 3
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.orZ
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2018
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
This meeting is open to the public. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.or /g meetings. Business Meetings are
usually streamed live online and video recorded.
Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or
discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics.
Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues
that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the
Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to
speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not
being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing.
If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your
testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the
permanent record of that hearing.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-678, a Collective
Bargaining Agreement with FOPPO
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 17, 2018 Page 1
of 3
2. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-043, Budget Adjustment -
Illegal Marijuana Enforcement
3. Approval of Minutes of the September 5, 2018 Business Meeting
4. Approval of Minutes of the September 12, 2018 Work Session
5. Approval of Minutes of the September 19, 2018 Business Meeting
6. Approval of Minutes of the September 19, 2018 Work Session
ACTION ITEMS
7. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-645, Saving Grace Grant
Agreement - Sarah Peterson, Systems Development Specialist
8. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-679, ODOT Right -Of -Way
Services Agreement - US 20-Tumalo Project - Chris Doty, Road Department Director
9. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-680, ODOT IGA - US 97 S
Century Drive to USFS Boundary Project - Chris Doty, Road Department Director
10. FIRST READING: Ordinance No. 2018-012, Marijuana Text Amendments - Tanya
Saltzman, Associate Planner
11. DELIBERATIONS: Father's House Church Appeals, 21420 Stevens Road, Bend -
Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2018-648, Outdoor
Mass Gathering Permit for 4 Peaks Music Festival - Isabella Liu, Associate Planner
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories.
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 17, 2018 Page 2
of 3
Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
ADJOURN
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To
request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar
Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572.
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 17, 2018 Page 3
of 3
N
mmrr■ L
wwwweece @--?0-3-437 E: -->e^ &-->w Ee ILIL ♦ ��wwsEE
Having flat tires is not something to take lightly. CM Y
It can cause death and hospitalization as mentioned below. RDC. "
In the midst of getting signatures, this is what I heard
"I had to get 4 new tires due to nails from the streets."
City street cleaner; "I see tons of nails all the time when I clean the streets." � �strcjt100
"My wife and I ended up in the hospital because our trailer turned due to the nail hitting our tires and
getting a flat tire."
"I had to wait 2 hours for AAA due to a flat tire making me late for work."
AAA said: "we get calls daily throughout the day where we have to change tires due to nails in the tires."
"I walk with a magnet picking up tons of nails while taking a walk."
"I found nails on the car mechanic floors 3x I had to get my car serviced. I told them to clean up their
nails."
"1 have gotten flat tires 6 times in a year very frustrating."
"I have had to fix my flat tires 3 times in a month."
"I have had to fix my bike tires numerous times. I feel unsafe riding my bike many times."
"Horses can get hurt too."
"I have a huge nail in my tire and I am driving around with it because I cannot afford to fix the tire right
now."
Getting flat tires this often and the danger that occurs is something we have to take seriously. Bikes, cars
and even horses can get hurt. We are a community. It is important to clean up the nails and respect each
other more.
Thank you.
Angelica Rose
0_/Y)
Su� -a-J tt.�cls t�
C:x� I S -f Clue (.a;t,lCJ � G
}( ,I r �I i, fjy
JIB �E f J LI � �..� DATE
No.
I.-._ ��r�.. _�
RECEIVED FROM
1; t f
DOLLARS
w
O FOR RENT
O FOR
( •,,>
O CASH
ACCOUNT
O CHECK
/� \ TO
FROM .,
PAYMENT MONEY
OQREDT�t.%3{3.
BAL. DUE CARD BY :"
Stop flat tires from nails on streets
Many citizens have nails in their tires creating flat tires. Construction companies are leaving nails on the
streets and car mechanics are leaving nails on their business property floor.
Car mechanics are required to sweep the nails off the floors where cars can get affected. Construction
companies are required to sweep and clean up the areas they are working in to prevent flat tires.
Citizens don't need to have to wait hours at car shops, AAA, or have their car towed because of the
negligence of construction companies and car mechanics not cleaning up the nails, razors, or other
elements that create the flat tires.
We the undersigned, call on the government to create a law that mandates construction companies and
car mechanics to clean up any nails, razors, or other elements that can damage car tires.
electronic signatures
https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-flat-tires-from-nails-on-streets,htmI
3',s 1k�A'e tl,Q;l.�l uC� (,� Inu'<S'11CtJcN<9-14
ckc�+ ug'
�cvlecQr�
i, c0.0 �a�=na�tss t;V ea
NX)
off
All!
. .. .........
11
to
S
-lot
�Jl
if
Vn
M
170
vo,
41
wy
LL
Ij
vAr
lVA-molUg
t
0
NEWN
INS--
Ix■2
z
5
+ +
Vi'luu'*
'1 e^
.0
-
0
- 11
- 2 r
n r
n
in
N
N
tj
.... ......
Al
. ....... .. .
J
Q;—
is
l -k
v?
x
41
0
4A
LL.
Stop flat tires from nails on streets
Many citizens have nails in their tires creating flat tires. Construction companies are leaving nails on the
streets and car mechanics are leaving nails on their business property floor.
Car mechanics are required to sweep the nails off the floors where cars can get affected. Construction
companies are required to sweep and clean up the areas they are working in to prevent flat tires.
Citizens don't need to have to wait hours at car shops, AAA, or have their car towed because of the
negligence of construction companies and car mechanics not cleaning up the nails, razors, or other
elements that create the flat tires.
We the undersigned, call on the government to create a law that mandates construction companies and
car mechanics to clean up any nails, razors, or other elements that can damage car tires.
electronic signatures
https://www.gopetition. com/petitions/stop-fiat-tires-from-na lls-o n -streets. html
L -M
0
11
�1�4
\l
E5,
; t
�
�'
F
'
4-1
41
10
uo,to
c'K
ra
.
...
......
45
ru
ro..
........
..
41
f
LL
....... ... .
Stop flat tires from nails on streets
Many citizens have nails in their tires creating flat tires. Construction companies are leaving nails on the
streets and car mechanics are leaving nails on their business property floor.
Car mechanics are required to sweep the nails off the floors where cars can get affected. Construction
companies are required to sweep and clean up the areas they are working in to prevent flat tires.
Citizens don't need to have to wait hours at car shops, AAA, or have their car towed because of the
negligence of construction companies and car mechanics not cleaning up the nails, razors, or other
elements that create the flat tires.
We the undersigned, call on the government to create a law that mandates construction companies and
car mechanics to clean up any nails, razors, or other elements that can damage car tires.
electronic signatures
https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-flat-tires-from-nails-on-streets.htmI
# Title Flrstname Last name City State Date Signature
Powered byCoPetWon
. .... .........
i C
N,
bLO
NN
CU
kx�
C -C
41
0J
"J
4�
tt
41
T
tU
Stop flat tires from nails on streets
Many citizens have nails in their tires creating flat tires. Construction companies are leaving nails on the
streets and car mechanics are leaving nails on their business property floor.
Car mechanics are required to sweep the nails off the floors where cars can get affected. Construction
companies are required to sweep and clean up the areas they are working in to prevent flat tires.
Citizens don't need to have to wait hours at car shops, AAA, or have their car towed because of the
negligence of construction companies and car mechanics not cleaning up the nails, razors, or other
elements that create the flat tires.
We the undersigned, call on the government to create a law that mandates construction companies and
car mechanics to clean up any nails, razors, or other elements that can damage car tires,
electronic signatures
https://www.gopetiti on.com/petitions/stop-flat-tires-from-na ils-o n -streets, html
�Al
sl�
Q"
41
tio
'51
os
41
vi
'j
U)
A
-3
4
>1
"J
-4-
E
1Q,
ZZ
\40
\—Q4
ra
77f
LL
Stop flat tires from nails on streets
Many citizens have nails in their tires creating flat tires. Construction companies are leaving nails on the
streets and car mechanics are leaving nails on their business property floor.
Car mechanics are required to sweep the nails off the floors where cars can get affected. Construction
companies are required to sweep and clean up the areas they are working in to prevent flat tires.
Citizens don't need to have to wait hours at car shops, AAA, or have their car towed because of the
negligence of construction companies and car mechanics not cleaning up the nails, razors, or other
elements that create the flat tires.
We the undersigned, call on the government to create a law that mandates construction companies and
car mechanics to clean up any nails, razors, or other elements that can damage car tires.
electronic signatures
https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-flat-tires-from-nails-on-streets.htmI
tv
jo
41
CS
i
. ..... ..
Qv,
41
An
,�.
May
�
(
Q
�
b
{��-
r � .
�
j
-.�.
.��
,�'
�
�`
`i5 U
NI)
IM
tE
IM
21.
-75
f\,-,
Jul
-1
Stop flat tires from nails on streets
Many citizens have nails in their tires creating fiat tires. Construction companies are leaving nails on the
streets and car mechanics are leaving nails on their business property floor.
Car mechanics are required to sweep the nails off the floors where cars can get affected. Construction
companies are required to sweep and clean up the areas they are working in to prevent flat tires,
Citizens don't need to have to wait hours at car shops, AAA, or have their car towed because of the
negligence of construction companies and car mechanics not cleaning up the nails, razors, or other
elements that create the flat tires.
We the undersigned, call on the government to create a law that mandates construction companies and
car mechanics to clean up any nails, razors, or other elements that can damage car tires.
electronic signatures
https://www.gopetition,com/petitions/stop-flat-tires-from-nails-on-streets. htmI
*6
Tr
61
rl+
I
f
4-0
\7
IZ7-
sl
NO
k
NM
41
1,A
co
41
4�
41
Stop flat tires from nails p.n streets
Many citizens have nails In their tires creating flat tires. Construction companies are leaving nails on thy.
streets and car mechanics are leaving nails on their business property floor.
Car mechanics are required to sweep the nails off the floors where cars can get affected. Construction
companies are required to sweep and clean up the areas they areworking in to prevent flat tires.
Citizens don't need to have to wait hours at car shops, AAA, or have their car towed because of the
negligence of construction companies and car mechanics not cleaning up the nails, razors, or other
elements that create the flat tires.
We the undersigned, call on the government to create a law that mandates construction companies and
car mechanics to clean up any nails, razors, or other elements that can damage.cartires.
electronic signatures
https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-flat-tires-from-nails-on-streets.html
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of October 17, 2018
DATE: October 10, 2018
FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Community Development, 541-317-3150
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
DELIBERATIONS: Father's House Church Appeals, 21420 Stevens Road, Bend
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Deliberations on two appeals of a church at 21420 Stevens Road. A public hearing was held
on August 27, 2017. The Board established an open record period of 24 days. The record
closed on September 20, 2018. The Board is tasked with determining if the proposal complies
with the applicable sections of DCC 18.116, 18.124, and 18.128.
See attached staff memo for additional information.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None
ATTENDANCE: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 10, 2018
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
COMMUNITY NI DEVE „O`MEN"'
RE: Deliberations; Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for Father's House Church (File
Nos. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A)
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) held a public hearing on August 27, 2018 to consider
two appeals, one filed by the applicant, Father's House Church/Church of God Cleveland (Father's
House) and the other by Julie Naslund, et al. This memo and the attached decision matrix are
intended to identify issue areas, summarize relevant findings and testimony, and provide a
framework for a decision. These documents do not replace the information contained in the record.
For the Board's review is the record from and since the public hearing. At various points in this
memo, staff highlights Board decision points.
Written evidence and testimony was submitted into the record at the hearing and during the post -
hearing open written record period. Said evidence and testimony is detailed in the Exhibit list at the
end of this memo.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Father's House, requested approval to establish a church at 21420 Stevens Road,
Bend. The property is located within the Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) Zone. The Hearings
Officer (H.O.) approved the church use through review of the conditional use permit (file no. 247-
18 -000061 -CU) finding the proposal is compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding
properties based on its site, design, and operating characteristics. However, the H.O. denied the
site plan review (file no. 247 -18 -000062 -SP) based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate that
they made reasonable efforts to propose development that will relate harmoniously to the natural
environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features
including views and topographical features. The H.O. issued a decision on July 31, 2018, which was
subsequently appealed. The Board accepted review of the Hearings Officer's decision on August
15, 2018 via Order No. 2018-055.
1, N!:"V L fG ett` avenin, Leet;!, Oregon 1)77)= , P,0. Box 6005, Bend C)R.'•//08 600L5
@ cdd(p—)dE: ;Cf': les .;:)r`
II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Procedural Requirements
The Deschutes County Code (DCC), Chapter 22.32 of the Procedures Ordinance requires each
appellant to provide a complete transcript of the lower hearing (DCC 22.32.024).' Unless waived by
the Board under DCC 22.32.024(D), if the transcript is not provided, the Board can dismiss the
appellant's appeal. In the attempt to comply with the DCC, the applicant provided a complete
transcript no later than five days prior to the date set for the appeal hearing before the Board.
However, the other appellant, Julie Naslund, et al. did not provide a transcript. The applicant's
attorney, Wendie Kellington presented this issue to the Board at the August 27 hearing.
In their September 4, 2018 written testimony, Julie Naslund took full responsibility for missing this
requirement and stated the following:
Our intention was never to skirt the rules, as inferred by counsel for the applicant. We
simply were not aware of the requirement and misread the description on the BOCC appeal
form.... We would be happy to reimburse the applicant for half of the fees involved in
producing the transcript, and appreciate you waiving the requirement at the hearing last
week so we could proceed with our appeal.
As mentioned by Commissioner Henderson at the hearing, the Board does not receive a transcript
for every appeal hearing before them. In addition, Commissioner Baney indicated that typically the
Board does not dismiss an appeal for the failure to provide a transcript. Nevertheless,
Commissioner Baney suggested this topic be discussed later.
Board Decision - Although an amendment to DCC 22.32 will be necessary to change the transcript
requirement, based on the discussion atthe hearing, does the Board want to make a general finding
waiving the transcript requirement?
DCC 22.32.024. Transcript Requirement.
A. Except as otherwise provided in DCC 22.32.024, appellants shall provide a complete transcript of any hearing appealed
from, from recorded magnetic tapes provided by the Planning Division.
B. Appellants shall submit to the Planning Division the transcript no later than the close of the day five days prior to the
date set for a de novo appeal hearing or, in on -the -record appeals, the date set for receipt of written arguments. Unless
excused under DCC 22.32.024, an appellant's failure to provide a transcript shall cause the Board to decline to consider
the appellant's appeal further and shall, upon notice mailed to the parties, cause the lower Hearings Body's decision to
become final,
C. An appellant shall be excused from providing a complete transcript if appellant was prevented from complying by: (1)
the inability of the Planning Division to supply appellant with a magnetic tape or tapes of the prior proceeding; or (2)
defects on the magnetic tape or tapes of the prior proceeding that make it not reasonably possible for applicant to
supply a transcript. Appellants shall comply to the maximum extent reasonably and practicably possible.
D. Notwithstanding any other provisions in DCC 22.32, the appeal hearings body may, at any time, waive the requirement
that the appellant provide a complete transcript for the appeal hearing.
247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247-18-000062-S P, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A Page 2 of 8
Ill. CHURCH
Site Plan Review
18.124.060. Approval Criteria.
Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria:
A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing
development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and
topographical features.
Site Plan review evaluates a proposal based on its impact on the subject property, surrounding
natural environment and existing development. In general, DCC 18.124.060 criteria include an
assessment of the existing landscape, topography, built environment, vehicle parking and
maneuvering, pedestrian access, surface drainage, storage areas, utilities, lighting, and
transportation access. The H.O. denied the proposed church based on DCC 18.124.060(A) indicating
the applicant did not demonstrate that they made a reasonable effort in considering alternative
designs for the church in order for it to relate harmoniously to the surrounding environment.
The applicant appealed this decision arguing that the H.O. erred in deciding that the church had not
demonstrated compliance with DCC 18.124.060(A). The applicant also argues that the H.O.
interpretation of DCC 18.124.060(A) is "contrary to ORS 215.416(8) and case law, as well as ORS
215.427."2 The applicant states that DCC 18.124.060(A) does not require "the submittal of serial site
plans (or serial applications)" until it is found that the proposed use complies. Nevertheless, in.order
to relate harmoniously by minimizing visual impacts, the applicant made several modifications to
the proposal, including reducing the number of parking spaces, reducing and modifying the lighting
plan, and adding landscaping.3 At the Board hearing, they also proposed, if necessary, lowering the
height of the building, adding more landscaping, and/or adding fencing along a portion of the
northern property boundary, as suggested by the H.O. The applicant uses a radius of approximately
one -mile (centered on the subject property) when considering the surrounding area, which includes
a variety of environments, developments, and zoning.'
2 The applicant argues here that based on how the H.O. interpreted and applied DCC 18.124.060(A), the
unreasonably vague standards violate ORS 215.416(8)(a). Furthermore, the applicant states that to the extent
the H.O. requires the applicant to submit multiple modifications in order to meet the standard, it is contrary
to ORS 215.427, which requires an application to be resolved within 150 days after the application is deemed
completed.
3 Although the applicant provided these modifications, they prefer to develop the property as originally
proposed including, by not limited to, building height and parking spaces (118 parking spaces).
' Both the applicant and appellant disagree with what is considered the surrounding area, generally, when it
comes to DCC 18.124 and 18.128. When reviewing DCC 18.128.015(8) the H.O. described an area that,
according to the applicant, appeared to be approximately one -mile in radius around the subject property.
The applicant proceeded to use this estimated study area for the review of both DCC 18.124 and 18.128.
247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A Page 3 of 8
The opponents support the H.O. decision. They argue that the development, based on its size and
scale, notthe specific use, does not relate harmoniouslyto the rural character of the neighborhood.'
They also challenge the applicant's alternatives analysis for not only the subject property but also
other properties and the existing church location inside Bend city limits. The opponents emphasize
the value in relating harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, as noted
in the standard, by minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views. The
opponents agree with the H.O. regarding the defined surrounding area of approximately one-
quarter mile instead of the one -mile radius presented by the applicant (refer to footnote 3). The
opponents study area includes similar zoning, lot sizes, type and scale of development, intensity,
and density of people to acreage.
As noted previously to the Board, staff is obligated to determine if the proposed development is
harmonious to the surrounding environment. However, the code does not require an applicant to
provide an alternatives analysis (e.g. different building designs and layout) with a proposal.
Therefore, staff reviews the development as proposed. The H.O. in this case, found that the
applicant did not demonstrate that they made a reasonable effort in considering alternative designs
for the development in order for it to relate harmoniously to the surrounding environment. If the
Board agrees with the H.O. finding, it will set a precedent by placing additional responsibility on staff
and future applicants to determine what alternatives, if any, make a proposal harmonious.
Board Decision - Has the applicant demonstrated that the church will be harmonious with the
natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural
features including views and topographical features?
Site Plan Review - Off Street Parking
18.116.030. Off Street Parking and Loading.
F. Development and Maintenance Standards for Off -Street Parking Areas. Every parcel of land
hereafter used as a public or private parking area, including commercial parking lots, shall be
developed as follows:
1. Except for parking to serve residential uses6 an off-street parking area for more than five
vehicles shall be effectively screened by a sight obscuring fence when adjacent to
residential uses, unless effectively screened or buffered by landscaping or structures.
Together with DCC 18.124.060(A), the H.O. denied the church on DCC 18.116.030(F)(1). For
reference, the criteria listed under DCC 18.116 generally addresses clear vision areas, off-street
parking and loading, and bicycle and pedestrian access.
5 In addition to the definition used by the H.O., the opponents provided two definitions of harmony from
Webster's dictionary (New Twentieth Century, Unabridged, 2"' edition) as "adapted to each other" and
"proportionate or congruous."
6 DCC 18.04.030 defines "use" as the following:
The purpose for which land or structure is designed, arranged or intended, or for which it is occupied or
maintained.
247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A Page 4 of 8
The applicant appeals this decision by claiming that the H.O. improperly applied DCC
18.116.030(F)(1) to deny the proposal. Furthermore, they contend that the H.O. did not explain how
this standard was interpreted nor is the interpretation clear to warrant the denial. Although the
applicant has proposed additional screening in the form of landscaping, fencing or a combination
of the two to minimize impacts, the applicant argues that this standard should apply only to those
areas where an adjacent residence will have unobstructed view of the parking area.' The applicant
refers to a previous County decision, file CU -09-74, where the H.O. in that case, interpreted that
screening of the off-street parking areas needed to be designed to minimize impacts from the
residence.'
The opponents do not believe the H.O. denial of 18.116.030(F)(1) is vague in interpretation. They
argue that this provision requires off-street parking adjacent to residential uses, not just the
dwelling, to be screened. The opponents state the applicant failed to provide adequate screening.
The proposed deciduous shrubs and trees, theyargue, will only provide screeningfor approximately
six months of the year, which is inadequate.
Board Decision - Is the proposed off-street parking area adjacent to residential uses? If so, has the
applicant demonstrated that the parking area will be effectively screened?
Conditional Use
18.128.015. General Standards Governing Conditional Uses.
Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single family dwellings, conditional uses
shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the
conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter.-
B.
hapter.
e. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding
properties based on the factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A).9
The Conditional Use general standards first review the church as it is presented on the subject
property (DCC 18.128.015(A)). Then, if the proposal is compatible with surrounding properties
based on site, design, and operating characteristics of the use, it is evaluated for it adequacy of
transportation access and natural and physical features of the site, as noted above. In previous
H.O. decisions the consistent interpretation has been that this criterion intends to:
' The record includes three versions of a landscape plan with each version including more vegetation added
alongthe north side of the proposed development. The third and most recent version presented at the Board
hearing includes a fence and/or landscaping option along a portion of the northern property boundary.
' The applicant's testimony incorrectly referred to file CU -09-47.
9 DCC 18.128.015(A) states,
A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following
factors:
1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use;
2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site, and
3. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural
hazards and natural resource values.
247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A Page 5 of 8
... require that the existing and projected 'use' on surrounding lands will be allowed to
continue" and that the proposal would not "preclude or severely impact whether
surrounding properties may continue to be used for their existing use.
Following this interpretation, the H.O. in this case found the church use to be compatible with
existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on its site, design, and operating
characteristics. The H.O. did not appear to use a defined dimensional radius when looking at
"surrounding properties."
The opponents appeal this finding by arguing that this is an incorrect interpretation and application
of DCC 18.128.015(B). In particular, the opponents state that this interpretation would require
physical encroachment of the proposed use on surrounding properties otherwise, "existing and
projected uses will always be able to continue." The opponents argue that not all factors from DCC
18.128.015(A) were considered evenly in the H.O. evaluation of this section. When reviewing
compatibility in this case, the opponents argue that design (in particular, physical characteristics
such as the size and scale) and operational characteristics of the church use should influence
compatibility. Moreover, the opponent states that the design (size and scale) of the proposed
development will not be compatible based on the purpose of the MUA-10 Zone because "it cannot
be said to maintain the rural character and conserve open space, cannot protect scenic resources
as described."10
Additionally, there is the question of what is considered "surrounding properties" and what is
considered relevant "existing and projected uses." As mentioned above in DCC 18.124, the
opponents propose that the surrounding area for this review include similar zoning, lot sizes, type
and scale of development, intensity, and density of people to acreage. They support the H.O. review
area of one-quarter mile used in DCC 18.124.
The applicant supports the H.O. decision regarding compatibility with surrounding properties. As
indicated previously, the H.O. did not appear to use a defined dimensional radius when looking at
the surrounding area. However, based on the description provided, the applicant estimated the
area to be approximately a one -mile radius. The applicant continued with this estimated area when
considering the surrounding area. This study area includes various environments, zoning, and
development.
10 DCC 18.32.010 MUA-10 Zone purpose statement states,
The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various areas of the
County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural
resources of the area, to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full time commercial farming
for diversified or part time agricultural uses; to conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces
and protect natural and scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land
resources of the County; to establish standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable
for intense development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from
rural to urban land use.
247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A Page 6 of 8
Board Decision - Is the proposed church use compatible with existing and projected uses on
surrounding properties based on site, design, and operating characteristics of the use; adequacy of
transportation access; and natural and physical features of the site?
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 215.441
Use of real property for religious activity; county regulation of real property used for religious
activity. (1) If a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, chapel, meetinghouse or other nonresidential
place of worship is allowed on real property understate law and rules and local zoning ordinances
and regulations, a county shall allow the reasonable use of the real property for activities
customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity, including...
(2) A county may.
(a) Subject real property described in subsection (1) of this section to reasonable regulations,
including site review or design review, concerning the physical characteristics of the uses
authorized under subsection (1) of this section;
The applicant argues that both DCC 18.116.030(F)(1) and 18.124.060(A), as discussed above, violate
ORS 215.441 because they are not reasonable regulations concerning physical characteristics of
religious activities.
The opponents disagree by stating the standards found in DCC 18.116 and 18.124 review the
development design, which incorporates physical characteristics such as size and layout of a
religious activity.
Board Decision - Does the Board want to make a finding or statement that addresses this argument
whether DCC is in violation of ORS 215.441?
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)
Similar to ORS 215.441, the applicant argues that both DCC 18.116.030(F)(1) and 18.124.060(A)
violate RLUIPA because they are inreasonable regulations as applied in this decision and that said
decision imposes a substantial burden on Father's House Church. Together with the above noted
sections of DCC 18.116 and 18.124, the applicant argues that DCC 18.128.015 (and DCC 18.128.080)
presents an equal terms issue regarding RLIUPA." Lastly, the applicant states that if the Board
accepts the opposition's appeal to reverse the H.O. interpretation of DCC 18.128.015(B), it will violate
the discrimination provisions of RLUIPA.
"Conditional uses permitted in the MUA-10 Zone (DCC 18.32.030) maybe allowed subject to DCC 18.128. For
reference, the standards found in DCC 18.128.015 govern all conditional uses. In DCC 18.32.030, public
assembly uses are listed differently and thus the subject appeal raises an interpretation and questions the
applicability not only with DCC 18.128.015 but also DCC 18.124, Site Plan Review (refer to Staff Memorandum
dated September 12, 2018 regarding DCC 18.124). Because DCC 18.32.030(W) lists churches as "subject to
DCC 18.124 and 18.128.080" but does not identify DCC 18.128.015, the applicant argues that DCC 18.128.015
is not applicable. However, the opponent's appeal is specific to this code section, claiming it applies.
247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A Page 7 of 8
To the extent the Board is leaning towards a denial based on Deschutes County Code, staff
recommends continuing deliberations to October 29, 2018 so a matrix can be prepared that focuses
exclusively on RLUIPA.
Board Decision — Does the Board want to make a finding or statement that addresses these
arguments whether DCC is in violation of RLUIPA?
IV. 150 -DAY Clock
The 150`h day on which the County must take final action on this application is November 15, 2018,
as extended by the applicant in their notice of appeal.
EXHIBITS
Evidence and testimony submitted at the public hearing
A. Applicant's (R. Wills & S. Wills) Letters
B. Applicant's Two Presentations
C. Appellant's (V. Vactor &J. Naslund) Letter & Presentation
D. Appellant's a. Naslund et al) Letters & Presentation
Post -hearing new evidence and testimony
E. Public (General) Testimony dated August 31 - September 4, 2018
F. Applicant's Testimony dated September 3 - 4, 2018
G. Appellant's 0. Naslund et al) Testimony dated September 3 - 4, 2018
H. Appellant's (V. Vactor &J. Naslund) Testimony dated September 4, 2018
I. Staff (A. Smith) Testimony dated September 4, 2018
Post -hearing rebuttal evidence and testimony
J. Applicant's Rebuttal dated September 12, 2018
K. Appellant's 0. Naslund et al) Rebuttal dated September 12, 2018
L. Appellant's (V. Vactor &J. Naslund) Rebuttal dated September 12, 2018
M. Staff (C. Smidt) Rebuttal dated September 12, 2018
Post-hearingApplicantfinal legal argument
N. Applicant's Final Arguments dated September 20, 2018
Staff submittal
O. Decision Matrix
247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A Page 8 of 8
Issue Area
Transcript
DCC 22.32.024 requires each
appellant to provide a complete
transcript of the lower hearing unless
waived by the Board under DCC
22.32.024(D). If the transcript is not
provided, the Board can dismiss the
appellant's appeal.
Site Plan Review - Harmonious
DCC 18.124.060(A) requires the
proposed development to relate
harmoniously to the natural
environment and existing
development, minimizing visual
impacts and preserving natural
features including views and
topographical features.
The Hearings Officer denied the
proposed church because the
applicant did not demonstrate that
they made a reasonable effort in
considering alternative designs for
the development in order for it to
relate harmoniously to the
surrounding environment.
Father's House Church - MATRIX
Applicant I Opposition I Staff Comments
The applicant provided a complete
transcript as required in DCC
22.32.024.
The applicant presented this issue to
the Board at the August 27 hearing.
H.O. interpretation of DCC
18.124.060(A) is "contrary to ORS
215.416(8) and LUBA law, as well as
ORS 215.427."
DCC 18.124.060(A) does not require
"the submittal of serial site plans (or
serial applications)" until it is found
that the proposed use complies.
Modifications include reducing the
number of parking spaces, modifying
the lighting plan, and adding
landscaping.
Proposals, if necessary, lower building
height, add more landscaping, and/or
add fencing along the northern
property line.
The opponents did not provide a
transcript in error.
The opponents are willing to
reimburse the applicant for half of the
fees involved in producing the
transcript.
Support the Hearings Officer's
decision.
Challenge the applicant's alternatives
analysis for not only the subject
property but also other properties
and the existing church location
inside the city limits.
Emphasize the value in relating
harmoniously to the natural
environment by minimizing visual
impacts and preserving natural
features including views.
Challenge what is considered the
surrounding area and provide their
own analysis of an area density of
people to acreage.
An amendment to DCC Chapter 22.32
is necessary to change transcript
requirements formally. However, the
Board can make a general finding
that the transcript requirement is
waived.
If the Board agrees with the H.O.
finding, it will set a precedent by
placing additional responsibility on
staff and future applicants to
determine what alternatives, if any,
make a proposal harmonious.
Board Decision
Does the Board waive the transcript
requirement?
1. If yes, proceed with the decision
matrix.
2. If no, does the Board wish to
dismiss the appellant's appeal and
focus solely on the applicant's
appeal?
Does DCC 18.124.060(A) conflict with
state statues?
Does the proposal satisfy DCC
18.124.060(A)?
1. If yes, proceed with the decision
matrix.
2. If no, then the Board can either
a. Impose conditions of approval
to ensure the development
relates harmoniously; or
b. Deny the Site Plan Review.
Proceed to RLUIPA section of
matrix.
247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A Board Deliberations MATRIX Page 1 of 3
Issue Area I Applicant Opposition Staff Comments Board Decision
Site Plan Review - Off Street Parking
Proposed off-street parking area is
not effectively screened.
DCC 18.116.030(F)(1) requires public
or private parking areas, including
commercial parking lots, to be
developed as follows:
Except for parking to serve residential
uses, an off-street parking area for
more than five vehicles shall be
effectively screened by a sight -
obscuring fence when adjacent to
residential uses, unless effectively
screened or buffered by landscaping
or structures.
Conditional Use
DCC 18.128.015(B) requires the
proposed use to be compatible with
existing and projected uses on
surrounding properties considering
the site, design and operating
characteristics of the use.
The Hearings Officer found the
church use to be compatible with
existing and projected uses on
surrounding properties based on its
site, design, and operating
characteristics.
Hearings Officer did not explain how
this standard was interpreted nor is
the interpretation clear to warrant the
denial.
Standard should apply only to those
areas where an adjacent residence
will have unobstructed view of the
parking area (referring to previous
approval of CU -09-74)
Applicant made several modifications
including adding landscaping, fencing,
or a combination of the two.
Supports the Hearings Officer's use of
the long-standing interpretation,
which approved the church regarding
compatibility with surrounding
properties.
Used a dimensional radius of
approximately 1 -mile based on the
area that it appears the Hearings
Officer used for evaluation.
Support the Hearings Officer's
decision and believe the applicant
failed to provide adequate screening.
Provision requires off-street parking
adjacent to residential uses, not just
the house, to be screened.
Argue this is an incorrect
interpretation and application of DCC
18.128.015(B).
Interpretation would require physical
encroachment of the proposed use
on surrounding properties otherwise,
"existing and projected uses will
always be able to continue."
Not all factors were considered
evenly in the decision including the
design (physical characteristics such
as the size and scale) and operational
characteristics
Design (size and scale) of the
proposed development will not be
compatible because it conflicts with
the purpose of the MUM 0 Zone.
None.
HO decision was based on a long-
standing interpretation that this
criterion intends to "require that the
existing and projected 'use' on
surrounding lands will be allowed to
continue" and that the proposal
would not "preclude or severely
impact whether surrounding
properties may continue to be used
for their existing use."
Does the proposal satisfy DCC
18.116.030() for off-street parking
with effective screening?
1. If yes, proceed with the decision
matrix.
2. If no, then the Board can either
a. Impose conditions of approval
to ensure effective screening; or
b. Deny the Site Plan Review.
Proceed to RLUIPA section of
matrix.
Does the proposal satisfy DCC
18.128.015(B)?
1. If yes, proceed with the decision
matrix.
2. If no, then the Board can either
a. Impose conditions of approval
to ensure compatibility; or
b. Deny the Conditional Use
permit. Proceed to RLUIPA
section of matrix.
247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A Board Deliberations MATRIX Page 2 of 3
Issue Area Applicant Opposition Staff Comments Board Decision
ORS 215.441
Reasonable Regulations
ORS 215.441(2)(a) requires a county to
allow the reasonable use of the real
property for activities customarily
associated with the practices of the
religious activity.
A county subject real property
described in subsection (1) of this
section to reasonable regulations,
including site review or design review,
concerning the physical
characteristics of the uses authorized
under subsection (1) of this section.
The applicant argues that both DCC
18.116.030(F)(1) and 18.124.060(A), as
discussed above, violate ORS 215.441
because they are not reasonable
regulations concerning physical
characteristics.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
protects religious liberty.
Similar to ORS 215.441, the applicant
argues that both DCC 18.116.030(F)(1)
and 18.124.060(A) violate RLUIPA as
applied in this decision
The Hearings Officer's decision
imposes a substantial burden on
Father's House Church.
Sections DCC 18.116.030(F)(1),
18.124.060(A), and 18.128.015 (and
DCC 18.128.080) present an equal
terms issue.
The applicant argues that if Board
accepts the oppositions appeal to
reverse the DCC 18.128.015(B)
interpretative finding by the Hearings
Officer, it will violate the
discrimination provisions of RLUIPA.
The opponents argue those standards
found in DCC 18.116 and 18.124
evaluate the development design,
which incorporates physical
characteristics such as size and layout
of the development.
The opponents are not in agreement
with the applicant's arguments
regarding DCC are in violation of
RLUIPA.
If the Board determines the church
meets the standards, it is unnecessary
to answer this question.
If the Board approves the church, it is
unnecessary to answer this question.
To the extent the Board is leaning
towards a denial based on Deschutes
County Code, staff recommends
continuing deliberations to October
29, 2018 so a matrix can be prepared
that focuses exclusively on RLUIPA.
Does the Board want to make a
finding or statement that addresses
this argument whether DCC is in
violation of ORS 215.441?
Does the Board want to make a
finding or statement that addresses
these arguments whether DCC is in
violation of RLUIPA?
247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A Board Deliberations MATRIX Page 3 of 3
X0/17/3018 - OF2S.215.441 -Use of real property for religious activity-.2017'aegon.Revised Statutes -
2017 ORS 215.4411
Use of real property for religious activity
• county regulation of real property used for religious
activity
(1) If a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, chapel, meeting house or other nonresidential place
of worship is allowed on real property under state,law and rules and local zoning ordinances
and regulations, a county shall allow the reasonable use of the real property for activities
customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity, including:
(a)
Worship services.
(b)
Religion classes.
(c)
Weddings.
(d)
Funerals.
(e)
Meal programs.
(f) Child care, but not including private or parochial school education for prekindergarten
through grade 12 or higher education.
(g) Providing housing or space for housing in a building that is detached from the place of
worship, provided:
(A) At least 50 percent of the residential units provided under this paragraph are
affordable to households with incomes equal to or less than 60 percent of the median
family income for the county in which the real property is located;
(B) The real property is in an area zoned for residential use that is located within the
urban growth boundary; and
(C) The housing or space for housing complies with applicable land use regulations and
meets the standards and criteria for residential development for the underlying zone.
(2) A county may:
(a) Subject real property described in subsection (1) of this section to reasonable regulations,
including site review or design review, concerning the physical characteristics of the uses
authorized under subsection (1) of this section; or
(b) Prohibit or restrict the use of real property by a place of worship described in subsection
(1) of this section if the county finds that the level of service of public facilities, including
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215.441 112
10/17/2018 -- ORS 2151441- =Ue`of real property for religious activity - 2017 Oregon -Revised Statutes r
transportation, water supply, sewer and storm drain systems is not adequate to serve the
place of worship described in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a county may allow a private or parochial
school for prekindergarten through grade 12 or higher education to be sited under applicable
state law and rules and local zoning ordinances and regulations.
(4) Housing and space for housing provided under subsection (1)(g) of this section must be
subject to a covenant appurtenant that restricts the owner and each successive owner of the
building or any residential unit contained in the building from selling or renting any residential
unit described in subsection (1)(g)(A) of this section as housing that is not affordable to
households with incomes equal to or less than 60 percent of the median family income for the
county in which the real property is located for a. period of 60 years from the date of the
certificate of occupancy. [2001 c.886 §2; 2017 c.745 §71
Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 295—County Planning; Zoning; Housing Codes,
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/biIIs_Iaws/ors/ors2l5.htm1 (2017) (last accessed Mar. 30, 2018).
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215.441 212
10/17/2018 - ORS 215.427 >Final action on permit or zone change -application - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes
2017 ORS 215.427'
Final action on permit or zone change application
• refund of application fees
(1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (5) and (10) of this section, for land within an urban
growth boundary and applications for mineral aggregate extraction, the governing body of a
county or its designee shall take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use
decision or zone change, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 215.422 (Review of
decision of hearings officer or other authority), within 120 days after the application is deemed
complete. The governing body of a county or its designee shall take final action on all other
applications for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change, including resolution of all
appeals under ORS 215.422 (Review of decision of hearings officer or other authority), within
150 days after the application is deemed complete, except as provided in subsections (3), (5)
and (10) of this section.
(2) If an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change is incomplete, the
governing body or its designee shall notify the applicant in writing of exactly what information
is missing within 30 days of receipt of the application and allow the applicant to submit the
missing information. The application shall be deemed complete for the purpose of subsection
(1) of this section and ORS 197.311 (Final action on application for certain residential
developments required within 100 days) upon receipt by the governing body or its designee
of:
(a) All of the missing information;
(b) Some of the missing information and written notice from the applicant that no other
information will be provided; or
(c) Written notice from the applicant that none of the missing information will be provided.
(3) (a) If the application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits additional
information, as described in subsection (2) of this section, within 180 days of the date the
application was first submitted and the county has a comprehensive plan and land use
regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.251 (Compliance acknowledgment), approval or
denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at
the time the application was first submitted.
(b) If the application is for industrial or traded sector development of a site identified under
section 12, chapter 800, Oregon Laws 2003, and proposes an amendment to the
comprehensive plan, approval or denial of the application must be based upon the
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215.427 1/3
10/17/2018 YRS 215.427 -Final action on permit or -zone change application - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes
standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted,
provided the application complies with paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(4) On the 181st day after first being submitted, the application is void if the applicant has been
notified of the missing information as required under subsection (2) of this section and has not
submitted:
(a) All of the missing information;
(b) Some of the missing information and written notice that no other information will be
provided; or
(c) Written notice that none of the missing information will be provided.
(5) The period set in subsection (1) of this section or the 100 -day period set in ORS 197.311
(Final action on application for certain residential developments required within 100 days) may
be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total of
all extensions, except as provided in subsection (10) of this section for mediation, may not
exceed 215 days.
(6) The period set in subsection (1) of this section applies:
(a) Only to decisions wholly within the authority and control of the governing body of the
county; and
(b) Unless the parties have agreed to mediation as described in subsection (10) of this
section or ORS 197.319 (Procedures prior to request of an enforcement order) (2)(b).
(7) Notwithstanding subsection (6) of this section, the period set in subsection (1) of this section
and the 100 -day period set in ORS 197.311 (Final action on application for certain residential
developments required within 100 days) do not apply to a decision of the county making a
change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation that is submitted to
the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development under ORS 197.610
(Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department
of Land Conservation and Development).
(8) Except when an applicant requests an extension under subsection (5) of this section, if the
governing body of the county or its designee does not take final action on an application for a
permit, limited land use decision or zone change within 120 days or 150 days, as applicable,
after the application is deemed complete, the county shall refund to the applicant either the
unexpended portion of any application fees or deposits previously paid or 50 percent of the
total amount of such fees or deposits, whichever is greater. The applicant is not liable for
additional governmental fees incurred subsequent to the payment of such fees or deposits.
However, the applicant is responsible for the costs of providing sufficient additional information
to address relevant issues identified in the consideration of the application.
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215.427 2/3
10/17/2018 = ORS 215.427 - Final -action on permit or zone change application - 2017 Oregon RevisedStatutes
(9) A county may not compel an applicant to waive the period set in subsection (1) of this section
or to waive the provisions of subsection (8) of this section or ORS 197.311 (Final action on
application for certain residential developments required within 100 days) or 215.429
(Mandamus proceeding when county fails to take final action on land use application within
specified time) as a condition for taking any action on an application for a permit, limited land
use decision or zone change except when such applications are filed concurrently and
considered jointly with a plan amendment.
(10) The periods set forth in subsections (1) and (5) of this section and ORS 197.311 (Final action
on application for certain residential developments required within 100 days) may be extended
by up to 90 additional days, if the applicant and the county agree that a dispute concerning the
application will be mediated. [1997 c.414 §2; 1999 c.393 §§3,3a; enacted in lieu of 215.428 in
1999; 2003 c.800 §30; 2007 c.232 §1; 2009 c.873 §15; 2011 c.280 §10; 2017 c.745 §10]
1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 215—County Planning; Zoning; Housing Codes,
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors2l5.htmi (2017) (last accessed Mar. 30, 2018).
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215.427 3/3
10/17/2018 ORS. -24-5.416 - Permit application - 2017- -Oregon Revised Statutes.
2017 ORS 215.4161
Permit application
• fees
• consolidated procedures
• hearings
• notice
• approval criteria
• decision without hearing
(1) When required or authorized by the ordinances, rules and regulations of a county, an owner of
land may apply in writing to such persons as the governing body designates, for a permit, in
the manner prescribed by the governing body. The governing body shall establish fees
charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost of
providing that service.
(2) The governing body shall establish a consolidated procedure by which an applicant may apply
at one time for all permits or zone changes needed for a development project. The
consolidated procedure shall be subject to the time limitations set out in ORS 215.427 (Final
action on permit or zone change application). The consolidated procedure shall be available
for use at the option of the applicant no later than the time of the first periodic review of the
comprehensive plan and land use regulations.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (11) of this section, the hearings officer shall hold at least
one public hearing on the application.
(4) (a) A county may not approve an application if the proposed use of land is found to be in
conflict with the comprehensive plan of the county and other applicable land use regulation or
ordinance provisions. The approval may include such conditions as are authorized by statute
or county legislation.
(b) (A) A county may not deny an application for a housing development located within the
urban growth boundary if the development complies with clear and objective standards,
including but not limited to clear and objective design standards contained in the county
comprehensive plan or land use regulations.
(B) This paragraph does not apply to:
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215.416 1/9
1 OMI/2-01-8 - ORS 215.416 - Permit application - 2017 Oregon PevisOcl Statutes
(i) Applications or permits for residential development in areas described in ORS 197.307
(Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas) (5); or
(ii) Applications or permits reviewed under an alternative approval process adopted under
ORS 197.307 (Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas) (6).
(c) A county may not reduce the density of an application for a housing development if:
(A) The density applied for is at or below the authorized density level under the local land
use regulations; and
(B) At least 75 percent of the floor area applied for is reserved for housing.
(d) A county may not reduce the height of an application for a housing development if:
(A) The height applied for is at or below the authorized height level under the local land
use regulations;
(B) At least 75 percent of the floor area applied for is reserved for housing; and
(C) Reducing the height has the effect of reducing the authorized density level under
local land use regulations.
(e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subsection, a county may reduce the
density or height of an application for a housing development if the reduction is necessary
to resolve a health, safety or habitability issue or to comply with a protective measure
adopted pursuant to a statewide land use planning goal.
(f) As used in this subsection:
(A) "Authorized density level" means the maximum number of lots or dwelling units or the
maximum floor area ratio that is permitted under local land use regulations.
(B) "Authorized height level" means the maximum height of a structure that is permitted
under local land use regulations.
(C) "Habitability" means being in compliance with the applicable provisions of the state
building code under ORS chapter 455 and the rules adopted thereunder.
(5) Hearings under this section shall be held only after notice to the applicant and also notice to
other persons as otherwise provided by law and shall otherwise be conducted in conformance
with the provisions of ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use hearings).
(6) Notice of a public hearing on an application submitted under this section shall be provided to
the owner of an airport defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation as a "public use airport"
if:
(a) The name and address of the airport owner has been provided by the Oregon
Department of Aviation to the county planning authority; and
(b) The property subject to the land use hearing is:
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215,416 2/9
10/17/2018 ORS 215.416 - Permit applicatiW.rr2017 Oregon Revised Statutes
(A) Within 5,000 feet of the side or end of a runway of an airport determined by the
Oregon Department of Aviation to be a "visual airport"; or
(B) Within 10,000 feet of the side or end of the runway of an airport determined by the
Oregon Department of Aviation to be an "instrument airport."
(7) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (6) of this section, notice of a land use hearing
need not be provided as set forth in subsection (6) of this section if the zoning permit would
only allow a structure less than 35 feet in height and the property is located outside the
runway "approach surface" as defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation.
(8) (a) Approval or denial of a permit application shall be based on standards and criteria which
shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the
county and which shall relate approval or denial of a permit application to the zoning
ordinance and comprehensive plan for the area in which the proposed use of land would
occur and to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the county as a whole.
(b) When an ordinance establishing approval standards is required under ORS 197.307
(Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas) to provide only clear and
objective standards, the standards must be clear and objective on the face of the
ordinance.
(9) Approval or denial of a permit or expedited land division shall be based upon and
accompanied by a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant
to the decision, states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the
justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth.
(10) Written notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to the proceeding.
(11) (a)(A) The hearings officer or such other person as the governing body designates may
approve or deny an application for a permit without a hearing if the hearings officer or other
designated person gives notice of the decision and provides an opportunity for any person
who is adversely affected or aggrieved, or who is entitled to notice under paragraph (c) of this
subsection, to file an appeal.
(B) Written notice of the decision shall be mailed to those persons described in
paragraph (c) of this subsection.
(C) Notice under this subsection shall comply with ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-
judicial land use hearings) (3)(a), (c), (g) and (h) and shall describe the nature of the
decision. In addition, the notice shall state that any person who is adversely affected
or aggrieved or who is entitled to written notice under paragraph (c) of this
subsection may appeal the decision by filing a written appeal in the manner and
within the time period provided in the county's land use regulations. A county may
not establish an appeal period that is less than 12 days from the date the written
notice of decision required by this subsection was mailed. The notice shall state that
https://www.oregonIaws.org/ors/215.416 3/9
10/17/2018--- - ORS 215.416 errnit-application - 2017 Oregon Revised -Statutes
the decision will not become final until the period for filing a local appeal has expired.
The notice also shall state that a person who is mailed written notice of the decision
cannot appeal the decision directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals under ORS
197.830 (Review procedures).
(D) An appeal from a hearings officer's decision made without hearing under this
subsection shall be to the planning commission or governing body of the county. An
appeal from such other person as the governing body designates shall be to a
hearings officer, the planning commission or the governing body. In either case, the
appeal shall be to a de novo hearing.
(E) The de novo hearing required by subparagraph (D) of this paragraph shall be the
initial evidentiary hearing required under ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-
judicial land use hearings) as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals. At the de novo hearing:
(i) The applicant and other parties shall have the same opportunity to present testimony,
arguments and evidence as they would have had in a hearing under subsection (3) of this
section before the decision;
(ii) The presentation of testimony, arguments and evidence shall not be limited to issues
raised in a notice of appeal; and
(iii) The decision maker shall consider all relevant testimony, arguments and evidence that are
accepted at the hearing.
(b) If a local government provides only a notice of the opportunity to request a hearing, the
local government may charge a fee for the initial hearing. The maximum fee for an initial
hearing shall be the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting the
appeal, or $250, whichever is less. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon
subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee allowed in
this paragraph shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community
organizations recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site.
(c) (A) Notice of a decision under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be provided to the
applicant and to the owners of record of property on the most recent property tax
assessment roll where such property is located:
(i) Within 100 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property
is wholly or in part within an urban growth boundary;
(ii) Within 250 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property
is outside an urban growth boundary and not within a farm or forest zone; or
(iii) Within 750 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the Suhjert property is
within a farm or forest zone.
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215.416 4/9
10/17/2018 ORS 215.416 - Permit application - 2017 -Oregon Revised Statutes'11
Notice shall also be provided to any neighborhood or community organization
(B) recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site.
(C) At the discretion of the applicant, the local government also shall provide notice to
the Department of Land Conservation and Development.
(12) A decision described in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to
215.780) (4)(b) shall:
(a) Be entered in a registry available to the public setting forth:
(A) The street address or other easily understood geographic reference to the subject
property;
(B) The date of the decision; and
(C) A description of the decision made.
(b) Be subject to the jurisdiction of the Land Use Board of Appeals in the same manner as a
limited land use decision.
(c) Be subject to the appeal period described in ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) (5)(b).
(13) At the option of the applicant, the local government shall provide notice of the decision
described in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780)
(4)(b) in the manner required by ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use
hearings) (2), in which case an appeal to the board shall be filed within 21 days of the
decision. The notice shall include an explanation of appeal rights.
(14) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, a limited land use decision shall be subject
to the requirements set forth in ORS 197.195 (Limited land use decision) and 197.828 (Board
review of limited land use decision). [1973 c.552 §§15, 16; 1977 c.654 §2; 1977 c.766 §12;
1979 c.772 §10a; 1983 c.827 §20; 1987 c.106 §2; 1987 c.729 §17; 1991 c.612 §20; 1991
c.817 §5; 1995 c.595 §27; 1995 c.692 §1; 1997 c.844 §4; 1999 c.357 §2; 1999 c.621 §1; 1999
c.935 §23; 2001 c.397 §1; 2017 c.745 §2]
Note: The amendments to 215.416 (Permit application) by section 2, chapter 745, Oregon Laws
2017, become operative July 1, 2018, and apply to applications for housing development
submitted for review on or after July 1, 2018. See sections 12 and 13, chapter 745, Oregon Laws
2017. The text that is operative until July 1, 2018, is set forth for the user's convenience.
215.416 (Permit application). (1) When required or authorized by the ordinances, rules and
regulations of a county, an owner of land may apply in writing to such persons as the governing
body designates, for a permit, in the manner prescribed by the governing body. The governing
body shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or
average cost of providing that service.
https://www.oregonIaws.org/ors/215.416 5/9
10/17/2018- ORS 215.416 - Permit -
10/17/2018 ORS 245.416 - Permit applicatio 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes
objective standards, the standards must be clear and objective on the face of the
ordinance.
(9) Approval or denial of a permit or expedited land division shall be based upon and
accompanied by a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant
to the decision, states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the
justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth.
(10) Written notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to the proceeding.
(11) (a)(A) The hearings officer or such other person as the governing body designates may
approve or deny an application for a permit without a hearing if the hearings officer or other
designated person gives notice of the decision and provides an opportunity for any person
who is adversely affected or aggrieved, or who is entitled to notice under paragraph (c) of this
subsection, to file an appeal.
(B) Written notice of the decision shall be mailed to those persons described in
paragraph (c) of this subsection.
(C) Notice under this subsection shall comply with ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-
judicial land use hearings) (3)(a), (c), (g) and (h) and shall describe the nature of the
decision. In addition, the notice shall state that any person who is adversely affected
or aggrieved or who is entitled to written notice under paragraph (c) of this
subsection may appeal the decision by filing a written appeal in the manner and
within the time period provided in the county's land use regulations. A county may
not establish an appeal period that is less than 12 days from the date the written
notice of decision required by this subsection was mailed. The notice shall state that
the decision will not become final until the period for filing a local appeal has expired.
The notice also shall state that a person who is mailed written notice of the decision
cannot appeal the decision directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals under ORS
197.830 (Review procedures).
(D) An appeal from a hearings officer's decision made without hearing under this
subsection shall be to the planning commission or governing body of the county. An
appeal from such other person as the governing body designates shall be to a
hearings officer, the planning commission or the governing body. In either case, the
appeal shall be to a de novo hearing.
(E) The de novo hearing required by subparagraph (D) of this paragraph shall be the
initial evidentiary hearing required under ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-
judicial land use hearings) as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals. At the de novo hearing:
(i) The applicant and other parties shall have the same opportunity to present testimony,
arguments and evidence as they would have had in a hearing under subsection (3) of this
section before the decision;
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215.416 7/9
10/1wL712018 - - - ORS 215.416 - Permit application - 2017 Oregon.Pavised Statutes -
(ii) The presentation of testimony, arguments and evidence shall not be limited to issues
raised in a notice of appeal; and
(iii) The decision maker shall consider all relevant testimony, arguments and evidence that are
accepted at the hearing.
(b) If a local government provides only a notice of the opportunity to request a hearing, the
local government may charge a fee for the initial hearing. The maximum fee for an initial
hearing shall be the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting the
appeal, or $250, whichever is less. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon
subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee allowed in
this paragraph shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community
organizations recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site.
(c) (A) Notice of a decision under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be provided to the
applicant and to the owners of record of property on the most recent property tax
assessment roll where such property is located:
(i) Within 100 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property
is wholly or in part within an urban growth boundary;
(ii) Within 250 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property
is outside an urban growth boundary and not within a farm or forest zone; or
(iii) Within 750 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property is
within a farm or forest zone.
(B) Notice shall also be provided to any neighborhood or community organization
recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site.
(C) At the discretion of the applicant, the local government also shall provide notice to
the Department of Land Conservation and Development.
(12) A decision described in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to
215.780) (4)(b) shall:
(a) Be entered in a registry available to the public setting forth:
(A) The street address or other easily understood geographic reference to the subject
property;
(B) The date of the decision; and
(C) A description of the decision made.
(b) Be subject to the jurisdiction of the Land Use Board of Appeals in the same manner as a
iirnited land use decision.
(c) Be subject to the appeal period described in ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) (5)(b).
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215.416 8/9
10/17/2018 QRS -245.416 - Permit application=_ 2.017 -.Oregon Revised Statutes
(13) At the option of the applicant, the local government shall provide notice of the decision
described in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780)
(4)(b) in the manner required by ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use
hearings) (2), in which case an appeal to the board shall be filed within 21 days of the
decision. The notice shall include an explanation of appeal rights.
(14) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, a limited land use decision shall be subject
to the requirements set forth in ORS 197.195 (Limited land use decision) and 197.828 (Board
review of limited land use decision).
1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 215—County Planning; Zoning; Housing Codes,
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors2l5.html (2017) (last accessed Mar. 30, 2018).
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215.416 9/9